This compelling video throws into serious doubt the authenticity of the Apollo missions and features information that challenges the declared abilities of NASA to successfully send a man to the Moon and return him safely to Earth. New evidence clearly suggests that NASA hoaxed pictures allegedly taken on the lunar surface. These findings are supported by analysis and the testimony of experts from a wide variety of scientific disciplines.

By the way. After the watcher of the truth missed the point, the image AS17 139 21204 which I display in my find was taken from http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2008/07/man_on_the_moon_future_and_pas.html, and the composition of the image was authored by NASA not by me, as teh watcher of the truth accused me of.

The Watcher of the Truth don't want to discuss anything but keeps ranting about data I showed that was originally produced by NASA. I think nothing else will stop this sudden attack of the watcher of the truth.

-- Frutty

AWW.. Back against the wall? Ok .. my hands are up LOLOL .. Fruit are you complaining? lol Admins you can step in and punish me accordingly.. lol read the posts firsts. Im sorry Fruit for sticking with the truth.. I highly recomend it. Sometimes someone has to step in and challenge hoaxers. I can take anything else but u crying for admins to save ur sorry ass over the TRUTH? Ive heard a lot of things but this really makes me LMFAO.

Man, a Light weight lol .. Ok u can have the truth back.. Just make sure u let it out once in a while..

The Watcher of the Truth don't want to discuss anything but keeps ranting about data I showed that was originally produced by NASA. I think nothing else will stop this sudden attack of the watcher of the truth.

OK.. heres the funniest thing , genius.. Both links supplied by you show true orientation. Dont ya think?You see u hoaxers havent very much to work with so hey lets rotate the image. Noone will notice that we've done it. the we can sell our idea! Craps me off. At least say u've rotated it. make a huge difference to the your BLACK SKY theory.

AS17-139-21204

Image Collection:

70mm Hasselblad

Mission:

17

Magazine:

139

Magazine Letter:

K

Lens Focal Length:

500 mm

Sun Elevation:

37°

Mission Activity:

EVA 3

Description:

STA 6; LUNAR MODULE

Film Type:

3401

Film Width:

70 mm

Film Color:

black & white

AS17-139-21203

Image Collection:

70mm Hasselblad

Mission:

17

Magazine:

139

Magazine Letter:

K

Lens Focal Length:

500 mm

Sun Elevation:

37°

Mission Activity:

EVA 3

Description:

STA 6; LUNAR MODULE

Film Type:

3401

Film Width:

70 mm

Film Color:

black & white

Fruit says- (with implied great knowledge)======= I always end up chatting with the dumbests of the forum members=========Yup I'd worry if my brains were in my ass.. Maybe your diferent , but who am I to judge. lol

Oh my god. Why is that I always end up chatting with the dumbests of the forum members.

here's your source ...

December, 1972 - Apollo 17. Astronaut Jack Schmitt took this telephoto picture of the Lunar Module, seen from a distance of about two miles (3.1 km). For an idea of scale, the Lunar Module is about 24 feet tall (7 meters). (Image is a combination of AS17-139-21204 and AS17-139-21203 - credit: NASA)

Oh dear Fruit.As I thought (and why I asked) you cut paste info from any quack site and stand on their misguided shoulders , without doing the foot work. Converging shadows fruit. lololol Jack White's Studies , Oh myyyyy you have taken a few steps backwards.Here I was thinking you had formulated your own thoughts and ideas. WEll there's know convincing you. Your on that path to no-where. Oh by the way .. Just a simple observation. Why did you tilt the cross haired image {again?). As explained before the cross- hairs help in orientation of land and photographer.

Theres no way (judging by your past images) you can remove those cross hairs without detection, Sorry.

Im going to leave you in peace on this subject as youre entitled to your opinion. i AND Qmantoo have blown enough holes in this train of unfortunate thought.

Good luck ( If only u really new what happened up there Fruit ,lol , I would just scare u a little).

Those brave souls went to a place that wasnt meant for mans first step have to be acknowledged. They bravely survived an amazing un-imaginable ordeal to face those whom think we never went.

What do you think Neil meant FRUIT?Neil Armstrong takes no prisoners with his words.

What do you think Neil meant FRUIT?

Heres one of your comrades in arms (below video) but just listen to the end words from Armstrong. You guys are really too blind to see that there are answers that you cant possibly expect! Something happened up there and its down to a few of us to find out what!

Watcher of the truth your beloved NASA is known for faking Apollo photographs on a regular basis, it’s more than well documented no need to go to far, just read all the posts below this one. With all due respect, from official debunkers I have seen you are the laziest one.

The central vertical line aligns with part of the South Massif, 'E' in the composite picture. However, in the composite with inserts an additional mountain ‘F’ and a peak between 'B' and 'D' are now visible as well.

Moving on to the picture insert at top right, it is AS17-139-21204, (21203 & 21205 are similar). Image 21204 was rotated 11 degrees clockwise to correct the horizontal and we have outlined the relevant section of the composite image (with white border) where this insert belongs.

A sister (139-21203) to the image at top right was also rotated clockwise 11 degrees and is show at left. Details of this scene are very interesting indeed for a variety of reasons.

The top version is a scan from a print made before the existence of the ALSJ and amazingly, is without reticles. These reticles have not been removed by us, this is how it was published. Has NASA since added* reticles (lower picture) to the versions now available on the Web? (See also Jack White's studies)

The item in the centre of this telephoto image, believe it or not, is the LM – allegedly at the same Apollo 17 location we were looking at earlier. According to the record, the LM is almost two miles away, photographed from the base of the North Massif. The sides of the South Massif in the background are 5 miles away.

The ALSJ states:

"Jack Schmitt took this superb picture of the LM from Station 6 with the 500-mm lens. Note the lighter surface around the spacecraft, produced by the sweeping action of the descent plume. Station 6 is about 3.1 km from the LM, which is about 7 m tall... "

It is interesting that this "sweeping action of the descent plume" is not visible in other photos – in any event should it not be a long blast trench? – see article Dust-to-Dust.

Taken from Aulis (thinking different)

-- Frutty

P.S. The Camera could be pointing to the opposite direction than the small one. Bring it on. I'll make you bite the dust as many times as you want.

Just a quick note.. Fruityour image has no cross-hairs??? It would be nice to know the source of your image.. The cross-hairs also give the orientation of the photographer and most of the time , horizon. Remember I said orientation - not location, just to be clear.

Just to apologise to readers over my typos, here and in previous posts (its annoying and distractingI understand).. still keep thinking I can go back and edit.. .. i know i should use spell-checker..

Also has anyone noticed the order of the posts is back-to-front.. very very confusing..

You really shouldnt screw around with the orientation of orgininal image and crop out the whole seen. Why did you rotate image AS17-139-21204? This is highly under handed and really decieves the viewer. Fortunately, or unfortunately for u Fruit ur dealing with a few of us that know these images well

I now understand that your knowledge of depth of field and object spacial relationship is very very thin and you really avoid answering your own questions so i'll fill you in on whats going on in on AS17-139-21204.

AS17-139-21204 LM from Station 6 with the 500-mm lens. Note the lighter surface around the spacecraft, produced by the sweeping action of the descent plume. Station 6 is about 3.1 kilometer from the LM, which is about 7 meters tall. The two large craters beyond the LM with prominent rim boulder fields are probably Hess (left) and Mackin (right), which are both about 6 km from Station 6 on higher ground than the landing site. Each of the craters is about 600 meters in diameter.

Camera angle: A lesson to the wise. Don't modify angles unless u understand the lay of the land and the implications to your presented idea. As you can see in the original image, the rover has traveled up to the rim of the depression/crater/bowl and shot down into it. A 500-mm lens will give a respectable focal view of the LM. Notice the LM is on the angled slope aswell. The important point is that the horizon is near the top of the image. and the shot of the LM is below eye - level. I leave to work out the rest. Its easy. Do the home work and come back with a thought out response.

Now a little strange statement from you that reall keeps painting you into that ever shrinking corner.

You have moved you self firmly into the sad sad camp of those whom believewe never went to the moon! But yet Laughably you select when and what pictures suit your needs and break your own rules.. Now , you're entitled to ur theories but you need to apply a little thought to your questionable hypothesis. Worst of all youve adjusted images to fit them ie above example.

Just to make the point clear. You need to educate yourself on the basics of photography (really easy). Perspective. vanishing points and distances with scale and how they effect each other.

This is gonna hurt FRUIT but WE DID go to the moon.! Images were doctored! Landscapes adjusted, thats a given but what your showing really is barking up the wrong tree. The Apollo 17 Mission had a secret mission. I guess you'll never understand that concept of thinking.

Editor's Comment: Once again, it is likely that there was a finite number of backdrops available to the photographic team to produce a large number of photographs and that NASA failed to anticipate such meticulous analysis of the imagery. See The skeleton in NASA's spacesuit andExposing Apollo.

No, timewarp the title to this thread is misleading. It should be called the Apollo missions Hoax, we are not talking here anymore about fractals (they are used in generating images from other planets) we are talking about the Barrington Crater in Arizona US, where the shots of the backdrops of this particular image and some films relating Apollo missions were produced. (See circumstantial evidence below).

If you investigate the barrington crater, it's full of the same exact strcutures we see on the Apollo missions. Why they formed or who made them? Your guess is as good as mine.

Humor me, Read once again the analysis I have made about the photomontage. The dimensions of the overlays is wrong! Read the papers, thousand s of phtomiontages are being passed off as real. Image manipulation has reached a stage that only experts in the field can tell the difference between a monntage and an authentic phtograph.

I have witnessed NASA phtographs and data relating Apollo are being edited periodically and new never seen photos come out once in while.

The films are also being edited. The landing on the Moon has been edited. The original had a different sequence at the end of the landing the new one (available on the internet does not). The evidence about the hoax is overwhelming.

The image source is the same, it's only different url addresses. Both come from official NASA Space Agency. That should be clear to you and the readers. No Satanley Kubrick involved (at least not officially )

The difference in size comes from the fact that the images have changed, that is they retouched it in the process.

I have to conquer my own fears. 6 months ago I was as sure as you space data was trustable. Unfortunately for us that is not the case.

My theory about this big lie (that pervades Atlases Books, Science Magazines and a a big etc, and probably will linger on fro centuries to come) is that space travel is still so difficult they could not continue failing sending multi million probes to space that where lost without a clue, without any accountability. Instead they decide to fake the whole thing.

Surely they know lots of things we don't. But we are deliberately beeing bombarded with false visual and scientific information on a daily basis.

Little by little you will wake up from your dream, my friend. Like a broken heart, it needs time to heal.

Why should we be seeing the same view with different backgrounds from two different sources?

I cannot see a justifiable reason for this unless one of the images was taken on the moon and the the other on a Stanley Kubrick set with the astronaut, lunar module and rover superimposed over a black and white image. This is the only way that one of the images can retain a monochrome background.

I believe the image I posted is the real thing. I do not think Stanley Kubrick or any other film producer would have realized that the landscape of the moon is 'decorated' with anthropomorphic shapes, as can be seen in the image shown below.

Also, I do not feel that the shapes seen in this particular image are fractally generated as the image was captured on analogue media and converted to digital format at a later stage.

__________________

"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed; Second, it is violently opposed; Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."

Timewarp please, read again the whole analysis of that particular photomontage.

In one image only the overlays, mainly the LM the astronaut, the flag and the lunar rover show a hint of color. They were overlayed over a black and white background, in which the landscape was blacked out to simulate the lunar sky.

In the one you say is authentic, although from the same source (lol), what they did was black the sky right out, and add color to the backdrop.

It’s so difficult to reach this simple conclusion, notwithstanding the extensive analysis I made on the image. Both images are photomontages my firend.

Thanks so much timewarp for further proving my hypothesis. No mystery if you consider one is the final product and the other a different stage in the process of manufacturing the image.

I would love if you took a time to evaluate the other images I have analyzed, to see if you find the fake skies that I have found. That would leave a confirmed peer reviewed testimony in this thread no matter if they decide to retouch the images once more in the future.

Ok Timewarp I will play along, for as far I can tell there's nobody who wants to wake up from the "space cadet dream", notwithstanding visual, logical and circumstancial evidence.

It's the same exact link that I gave before when I started demonstaring this image is a complete fake, and from which you so gently found the fake skies that you reproduced and posted below in this same thread, and agreeded exactly with mine, and which showed no hint of color at all.

Also goggog found the anomaly, I had not noticed till he mentioned it.

The image containg the sky anomalies was from a reference given by Frutty. By increasing the color saturation of this image by 300% the background appears to stay black and white without any hint of coloration.

I have since downloaded the same image from the NASA site and found that by increasing the color saturation of this image the background produces color information. This is what I would expect for an image captured on color film. Also I applied the same adjustments to the new image and produced what would normally be expected in the sky area, so what is the reference for the image that Frutty produced where the background stays black and white?

Dr. Eugene Shoemaker (pointing with hammer) lectures to a group of astronauts at Meteor Crater, Arizona. The floor of the crater is in the center of the photo, Paul Switzer Collection, NAU.PH.426.476, Center of Astrogeology, USGS, Photo No. 56773, Cline Library Special Collections and Archives, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, Arizona.

Apollo 15 astronauts Jim Irwin and Dave Scott using "Grover" (a model of the lunar vehicle used on the moon) in a training exercise at the Cinder Lake crater field east of Flagstaff, Paul Switzer Collection, NAU.PH.426.466, Cline Library Special Collections and Archives, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, Arizona.

Description:Two Apollo 15 crewmen, riding a lunar roving vehicle simulator during geology training at the Cinder Lake crater field in Arizona. Astronaut David R. Scott, Apollo 15 commander, is seated in the background; and to Scott's right is Astronaut James B. Irwin, lunar module pilot. They have stopped at the rim of a 30-foot crater to look over the terrain. The simulator, called "Grover" was built by the U.S. Geological Survey.

Conclusion: Not even the backdrops are real lunar landscapes. Notice how easy a photograph taken on earth (in the Arizona dessert, mainly inside the Barrington Crater) with the crew of Apollo missions can be turned into a classical Apollo photograph.

Hope you can also see the similarity of this photograph with the one published by universe today trying to explain man really got to the moon (even probably exactly the same scenario)

This image was obtained by qmantoo's shadow enhancer utility, applyed to the same photograph appeared in universe today, (url http://c2431622.cdn.cloudfiles.rackspacecloud.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/Neil-Armstrong-on-the-Lunar-Surface.jpg) displaying Buzz clinging to the LM.

The structures hidden in the blacked out sky are cleaner than in my ehnancement of the same area.

The photograph portrayed in a recent article in universe today (Nov 16th 2010) , entitled Moon Hoax, in which they try for the millionth time to “lay to rest” the moon hoax claims by an ever growing number of persons everyday more suspicious about the fraud, is a hoax.

By the way any idea as to what the structure in the blacked out desaturated area below could be? I have already an understanding of the structures on the Moon but would love to see some other opinions to this respect.

P.S> Photographs of the apollo mission continue to be falsified as I write, light effects as the one seen on the right side of the pic by universe, are now constantly showing, when long ago they were not there, simulating the multicolored light spectre by the sun reflected into cameras and gear. The same thing can be found in some recen JAXA moon photographs (echoing the grey moon terrrain fib)

Up to now from the Apollo’s pics set I’ve studied in this thread so far, is the one that shows the least anomalies in the sky, from the whole set.

Displaying some stardust around the astronaut and some other indiscernible white dots in the lunar sky, the pic could not pass the artificially blacked out sky test either. An anomaly shows in the top leftmost side of the pic. A strange object indeed (See zoom on the right side).

Notice again the terrain that although has been carefully dissociated into unconnected neighboring pixels, still displays some recognizable structures ( I leave this to timewarp, who has got a better eye than mine for these kind of anomalies). The picture is oversaturated exaggerating the colors involved

Before Mans’ first step on the Moon, our satellite was considered to be a very irregular very rocky terrain. On the prediction of the terrain, one of the most famous astronomers that studied the moon (among other planets and also the sun), Gerard P. Kuiper, thought that stepping on the moon would be like stepping on very hard snow while a group of anonymous others, defended the position The Moon’s terrain was full of sand, and the difficulty would be how to prevent the astronauts from sinking in deep it.

At the end they found a medium point some sand enough for the astronauts to play with.

According to my studies on available images, there’s no sand on the Moon.

Below there’s a picture attributed to Apollo 16, processed according to my standards, revealing the strange fake skies, as well as the very rugged, structured terrain. On the right a zoom into what to me appears like a face sculpture (further enhanced for contours).

The curious thing in this one is that additionally to displaying the same blacked out fake skies, the sand which appears to be propelled by the power of the rover as it revs up on lunar sand turned out ot be trees?